About your Search

20130218
20130218
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
, harry reid, and said this is the solution. >> all right. meanwhile, senator lindsay graham is suggesting one potential -- >> i'm sorry, could i interrupt? i had a munchkin in my mouth. >> no, you can't have those. you're supposed to have your greek yogurt. >> i'm trying to make a point with a visual aid. this is like defense spending. done. gone. >> before the day has even started, you've just -- give those to me. >> i'm not homer simpson. what do you make of what woodward said? >> the president's in charge. he's got to figure out a way to stop the sequester. i think the symbolism of the last couple weeks haven't been great. he's not really out there leading a new path towards figuring out how to avoid something he says is a bad idea and promised as a candidate wouldn't happen. >> okay. john, joe's mouth is full. what do you think? >> i'm hap think the sequester be a bad thing. >> everyone says that. who's going to take the blame? who should? >> if it ends up going into effect, i think they're all going to take a lot of blame and they should. it's fair enough to say, if bob's reporting i
did because harry reid spent $2 million attacking him as a conservative during the republican primary. he said he never voted for a tax increase and always pro-life and supported a balanced budget amendment, and the object was help nominate the weakest republican candidate possible, so they'd have a chance -- >> but you set yourself up as a politbureau and the theory on republicanism is to lit the local state -- >> rand paul had a right and everybody has a chance in markets and let people go in and participate, the opposite of politbureau and the more who participate the better off we are and the more we examine the quality of the candidates the more likely we have fewer christine o'donnell's and more ra rand paul joos what do you think of the republican party's decision, temporarily, to block the nomination of the defense secretary for the first time in our history. >> why wouldn't they? in the end he's probably going to be confirmed, but in the meantime this is an opportunity -- the president thought in nominating chuck hagel he'd put him out there and rub republicans' noses in it a
are the prospective candidates. there was a reason why todd akin won the primary. he won because harry reid went in and spent $2 million attacking him as a conservative during the republican primary. he said himself he has never voted for a tax increase. always been prolife. even supported a balanced budget amendment too conservative for missouri. the object was help nominate the weakest republican candidate possible to have is a chance. >> you are going to set your isself up as a bureau vetting the candidates. i mean -- >> no, no, no. >> the whole theory of republicanism is to let the local state or district decide. >> i think rand paul had it right. everybody has a chance. we believe in markets. let people do go in and partis it pate. the more people who participate the better off we are. the more we examine the quality of the candidates from top to bottom the more likely we end up with fewer kristine o'donnells and more rand pauls. >> chris: what do you make of the republican party decision to block temporarily but to block the nomination of a defense secretary for the first time in our histo
and harry reid and the hl said in the last few days we don't have a spending problem. this will hurt in places. at the end of the day it's unclear how much people will blame the president or the republicans for what. they think we have a spending problem. >> great thing about everybody wants, thinks ve a revenue problem. spending problem. this is great until it's their thing that got cut. my job or my social security or medicare or whatever the cut is. everybody thinking we have a spending problem until it happens. the cuts come and price to play and then we blame somebody. there is blame on both sides but that is the politics. >> bret: does it happen? >> i think there will be -- we have sequestration. >> does it happen? >> absolutely. we needed presidential leadership for 18 months to avoid this. the president is nowhere, never presented a plan. last week they asked in congress testimony what is the number attached to the president's plan and he said we have never seen a president plan. avoid it. >> thank you. coming up, sig, assigning blamer war crimes in syria. [ male announcer ]
proposed it to harry reid and off it went. in the end all the fingerprints of washington are on this deal in the end. you're saying in fact our navy is too pau small, you want a bigger one, buy bigger, cheaper, faster ships. this is a wake up call for the defense department. how do they learn from this. ralph? >> well, i hope they feel some real pain. i don't want our troops to feel pain. i don't want any honest federal worker to be furniture load. but my god, bill, the waste in the defense budget is enormous, and there is no lemon law when contractors sell us junk. generals and admirals don't say boo about weapons that don't work because they get out and go to work for the defense industry for lucrative salaries, and congress, again, they'll vote to preserve 20 bad jobs in their home district even if it cost us 20 troops. you're absolutely right, everybody's fingerprint is on it and my line to the republican is if sequestration is so bad, why do you guys vote for it? why do you have the guts to stand up back then? i say a playing on bot plague on both their houses stphao. bill: the milit
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)